Yes, the driver should have looked both ways (especially given that he knew of the habit of bikers speeding down the hill the wrong way) but equally, cycling down a cycle path on the wrong side of the road is a stupid thing to do as well.

Apparently the majority of road accidents are caused by a few things going wrong at the same time rather than just one problem/mistake in isolation, this sounds like just that.

Here where I live we have cycle paths on just one side of the road. Does this mean I have to cycle just one way on them as I've never heard of cycle paths being one way especially as they are shared with walkers who go both ways!

Reminds me of a comment made after my sister had a head-on collision on a sharp bend in a side street-"It was a good job we both knew it was a dangerous corner, otherwise it could have been much worse.", pure genius.
It's about time road users realised that if they're going to avoid having accidents, they have to take responsibility for everybody's actions, not just their own.

Here where I live we have cycle paths on just one side of the road. Does this mean I have to cycle just one way on them as I've never heard of cycle paths being one way especially as they are shared with walkers who go both ways!

It depends on the path some are one way some are two way. If that photo in the newspaper is the one in question, then I can see why there would be a path going up hill where the cyclists are slower than other road users and not one going downhill where they will be at the same(ish) speed as other road users. I agree that it's a case six and two threes.

Here where I live we have cycle paths on just one side of the road. Does this mean I have to cycle just one way on them as I've never heard of cycle paths being one way especially as they are shared with walkers who go both ways!

I was about to say the same thing, I follow this rule... If the cyclepath is on the road itself, then I assume it is one way. There's usually one on each side of the road if this is the case. If it is on a shared path (usually on or next to pavement) then I assume it goes both ways.

Even on a 30 road I'd be shit scared riding against oncoming traffic like that, double impact!

As a man much wiser than me once said: "Too many psychopaths, not enough cycle paths"

That makes good sense thanks. Not having that steep a hill round here, it had'nt occurred to me about the speed factor. Also, here the cycle paths are shared pavement with only minimal road shared which obviously I wouldn't ride the wrong way on.

Weirdly I largely agree the cyclist was at fault, bike lanes that are part of a road are mostly one way, going the same way as the traffic on that side. I've seen a few cyclists using them over the years as two way which is dangerous for fellow cyclists as well as themselves. The cyclists I've seen doing this are generally in the leisure category, i.e. people cycling for transport not hobby, often in jeans etc - nowt wrong with that but they clearly need some help using bike facilities.

I suspect theres another reason they go the wrong way on that route, maybe the road is busy and they cant cross it to use the other side? Or some such thing. Maybe the college is on this side of the road and people cant be bothered to cross. anybody know?

As above I'd guess there is a reason cyclists are using the lane in wrong direction - lots of drivers don't check for filtering bikes cars or motorbikes a lot don't check when pulling out turning left even to see if any obstruction - lived opposite a bus stop by a junction and saw a few cars pull out fast into the back of a stationary bus because only looked one way

Old guy admits to not looking, well at least he had the balls to say so. Cyclist however, well that was simply natural selection in action. Having spent time with "leisure" cyclists, they seem to think that the rules of the road don't apply to them and its pretty scary watching them"interact" with traffic.

My thoughts exactly, he knew of a possible hazard but chose not to check - with the college where it is, this is going to be difficult to stop people riding this way.

College is at the top of the hill (behind in this pic) on the same side as Mervs house, students want to get to town (at the bottom) but the cycle path in question is used rather than crossing a busy road, using the correct cycle lane then crossing the same busy road halfway down the hill.Picture of both cycle lanes

Having looked at the google link, i link the way the path just disappears and then reappears on the downhill side how it takes you right past the gates of the houses on a narrow pavement, the positioning of the blue pedestrian/cyclist sign. The way it leads you onto the pavement at a ridiculus angle, accident waiting to happen if ever i saw one!

The on-road lane is obviously one-way, but what are cyclists going the other way on the shared path supposed to do? There's no sign saying that the shared use path has ended, so with the on-road lane clearly being one-way, you might reasonably do the same as the cyclist captured on Google and carry on on the path.

If you look a bit further down the hill, you can see why people coming from the college want to use that side of the road. You'd otherwise have to make what looks like difficult right turn to stay on Sticklepath Hill, and then get onto the cycle path across to the train station etc. Although that said, I don't know why you would go down the much quieter Old Sticklepath Hill which links up with the same route, other than the fact that there's no sign at the top of the hill suggesting that it's possible.

There's obviously some acknowledgement of the problem: it's pretty rare of an on-road cycle lane to have direction arrows, and this one has plenty. If the cyclist really was in the cycle lane, then I have little sympathy as it's very obviously one way.

if you move up the hill from the link above, i guess towards the college, you can see why cyclists use this side of the road, eventually at the roundabout the cycle lane fades into the path, this is quite a wide cycle lane so i can see the appeal of riding down it, against the traffic direction. I wouldnt myself but can see the temptation looks more appealing than crossing that traffic. There needs to be some adjustment to get the bikes over the road onto the right side. or to build up the pavement and make the cycle lane dual purpose (multi-directional) with pedestrians/bikes and up off the road.

Although that said, I don't know why you would go down the much quieter Old Sticklepath Hill which links up with the same route, other than the fact that there's no sign at the top of the hill suggesting that it's possible.

Old Sticklepath hill is much steeper & has a chicane/fence type bit at the bottom & a lot of students walk down there blocking the road, unaware of people riding down.After this tragic accident

If you go back up the hill on streetview, to the Esso Garage, http://goo.gl/maps/uXDBb you'll see that the cycle lane disappears and the pavement on that side of the road becomes a two way cycle track and shared use pavement. So...

1. I can't see any signs to say that the pavement further down the hill is no longer 'shared use'. It probably isn't but there's someone on a bike on streetview riding on it. So the driver could have been supposed to be looking for cyclists coming downhill on the pavement.

2. There's a confusing bit of paint that could just be a divider for Pedestrian¦Cyclist or it could be directing cyclists heading down the hill into the cycle lane: http://goo.gl/maps/1DXNp
It could be that the designers (ha!) never imagined that anyone would be travelling 'against' the traffic flow while on the shared use pavement. So where they put the paint guiding 'uphill' cyclists onto the pavement it now looks like it's guiding downhill cyclists into the road.

It's a bit of mess really. Well intentioned but poorly thought out and half heartedly built, like most cycle facilities in the UK.

The driver should have looked both ways and the cyclist shouldn't have been riding against traffic.

Edit: Other people ^^ have said the same as me about the rubbish cycle lane.

If you look over the shoulder of the guy in the picture above there is the stem of what looks to be an arrow indicating the direction of travel for the lane.

If there was a kid cycling down the lane then the driver should also have been on the look out for pedestrians leaving the college as I assume the kid wasn't alone in leaving school/college for the day.

Mistakes all round really. The 'flashing' driver shouldn't have and should have seen the cyclist, the cyclist shouldn't have been on the wrong side of the road, and the driver was clearly not paying enough attention.

It does make you wonder why the driver flashed. He/she would have been looking straight at the cyclist when they did it!

Mind you, I had a van half overtake me, then slam on the brakes and flash a car to pull out of a side road on the left. I nearly ended up in the side of it. I was travelling the right way down the road though!

Initially I was mostly with Merv, but after looking at that signage, there's nothing (except possibly some common sense) telling cyclists that their shared path has ended, so he perhaps should expect cyclists on his pavement heading downhill, so should have looked harder.

Crazy cycle 'facility', though, given the speed that could be built up on that hill. Council needs to look again at it.

Merv does know that pedestrians may be approaching from the left doesn't he? And he already knows cyclists ride the wrong way so he really, really should be looking left aswell before he pulls out (and IME lots of driver don't look at all when they get flashed, which is shit scary quite irksome if I'm filtering or overtaking busy traffic)

shite bike infrastructure as per.

But yeah cyclist contributed to it. 50/50?

Bails I sometimes wonder whether some drivers do shit like that on purpose, "oooh luck there's a cyclist lets have some fun and flash this car out of the side street".

the cyclist may have been in the wrong place, BUT the driver is the one who has a licence, the one who is expected to know the law, to make allowances for those around him. What if it had been a kid on a scooter,etc. Was he blocking the pavement, what if a pedestrian was trying to get past etc.

I'm 80-20 in Merv's favour. He could have looked to check both ways were clear but then there shouldn't have been anything coming from that direction as it's not a contra flow, maybe he should also have looked up in case there was a falling piano heading his way.

He could have looked to check both ways were clear but then there shouldn't have been anything coming from that direction

pedestrians? Bit of a bug bear of mine, at rush hour there's always a queue of cars in this side street bumper to bumper and the lead drivers only looking for cars to their right, how the hell are pedestrians supposed to cross the side street, infront of the lead car who is only concentrating on cars from the right? Wait for the drivers to wave you across? (good luck with that)

I already said bicyclist has to share some blame but drivers have a duty to look both ways, more so than others cause they are the ones in the potentially very dangerous vehicle.